Search

November 2005

From a speech by Barack Obama: It’s the timidity of politics that’s holding us back right now – the
politics of can’t-do and oh-well. An energy crisis that jeopardizes our
security and our economy? No magic wand to fix it, we’re told.
Thousands of jobs vanishing overseas? It’s actually healthier for the
economy that way. Three days late to the worst natural disaster in
American history? Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.

And of course, if nothing can be done to solve the problems we face, if
we have no collective responsibility to look out for one another, then
the next logical step is to give everyone one big refund on their
government – divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand ‘em out, and
encourage everyone to go buy their own health care, their own
retirement plan, their own child care, their own schools, their own
roads, their own levees…

We know this as the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been
another term for it – Social Darwinism – every man or women for him or
herself. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may
rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to
the child who was born into poverty – pull yourself up by your
bootstraps. It let’s us say to the workers who lose their job when the
factory shuts down – you’re on your own.

But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. Yes, our
greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a
belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of
mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in
the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot
at opportunity.

Note: This was intended as a Preface to a curriculum based on teaching Discrete Mathematics and a conceptualization of mathematics as a language for those people who were alienated, phobic, or otherwise performing poorly following a traditional calculation-oriented coursework.

I read about the "attention" economy. The idea is that information is not in any way scarce, so it can't be the basis of an economy; it's attention that's scarce.

The analogy made by the author is the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and I admit to being utterly ignorant of that process. However, I do nevertheless feel the need to ask the question: I guess if you're poor, you can pay a lot of attention to a rich person and they'll feed you?

Nope, it works backwards: if you're poor and you can GET the attention of a rich person, they'll feed you.

So, I started my own store on Cafe Press. I haven't yet checked out the quality, so caveat emptor; and of course divesting myself of miscellany on eBay would undoubtedly be more lucrative, but what the hey.